Huling v. State, 7 Div. 344
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | STAKELY; LIVINGSTON |
| Citation | 265 Ala. 697,92 So.2d 50 |
| Parties | Annie Ray HULING v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 344 |
| Decision Date | 17 January 1957 |
Page 50
v.
STATE.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of Annie Ray Huling for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Huling v. State, 92 So.2d 47.
Love & Hines, Talladega, for petitioner.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Jas. W. Webb, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.
STAKELY, Justice.
The Court has decided that the petition for certiorari must be stricken because it was not filed within the time required by law. We would like to add, however, that a careful consideration of the petition for certiorari shows that it is without merit.
Petition for Certiorari stricken.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
2 cases
-
Hayes v. State, 6 Div. 398
...the procedural requirement of processing an appeal must be borne by the appellant, and cannot be cast upon the clerk. Huling v. State, 265 Ala. 697, 92 So.2d Rule 37 is crystal clear, and he who runs may read, that an extension of time for thirty days for filing a record in this court may b......
-
Orum v. State, 3 Div. 481
...the procedural requirement of processing an appeal must be borne by the appellant, and cannot be cast upon the clerk. Huling v. State, 265 Ala. 697, 92 So.2d It follows that the sentence in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals which reads, 'It is only after the circuit clerk complet......